Mokete v Kolobe (C of A (CIV) 55 of 2011) [2012] LSCA 118 (27 April 2012)

IN THE COUR T OF AP P E AL OF LE S OTHO C OF A (CIV) No .5 5 / 2 0 1 1 In th e m a tter b etween : R AMPASANA MOKE TE AP PE LLANT AND LIKOLOBE TS IE TSI R E S P ONDE NT COR AM: RAMODIBE DI, P S MALBE RGE R, J A HOWIE , J A HE AR D: DE LIVE R E D: 2 0 APRIL 2 0 1 2 2 7 APRIL 2 0 1 2 S UMMA R Y Appe al – Applica tion for con d on a tion of th e la te filin g of appe al a ga in s t a High Cou rt d e cis ion in its a ppe lla te ju ris d iction – S ection 1 7 of th e Cou rt of Appe al Act 1 9 7 8 – Ce rtifica te for le av e to a ppe al fa ilin g to d efin e poin t of la w – Applica tion for con d on a tion of th e la te filin g of th e record of procee d in gs – No ex pla n a tion fu rn is h e d for th e d elay – Th e appe llan t’s grou n d s of appe al ra is in g is s u e s of fact an d n ot la w – Applica tion for con d on a tion d is m is s e d w ith cos ts – Appe al s im ila rly d is m is s e d w ith cos ts . J UDGME NT R AMODIBE DI P [1 ] E s s en tia lly, t h e is s u e wh ich p r im a r ily a r is es in t h is a p p ea l is a n a p p lica tion for con d on a tion of t h e la te filin g of a p p ea l a s well a s t h e r ecor d of p r oceed in gs . [2 ] Th e d is p u t e givin g r is e to t h is m a t ter or igin a t ed in t h e Ma ta la Loca l Cou r t s om e twen ty-fou r yea r s a go. Th e p oin t a t is s u e con cer n s a cer ta in field (“t h e field ”) s itu a t ed a t Ha Ma ta la . Th e p a r ties a r e on com m on gr ou n d t h a t t h e field or igin a lly b elon ged t o t h e r es p on d en t ’s p r ed eces s or in title, n a m ely, Lik olob e S en ior . It is t h e r es p on d en t’s ca s e, wh ich h a s b een a ccep ted b y a ll t h e t h r ee lower cou r ts wh ich h a ve a d ju d ica ted u p on t h e m a t ter a s well a s t h e High Cou r t , t h a t a ft er t h e d ea t h of Lik olob e Sen ior , t h e field wa s u s ed b y on e Mot u p u Ma p h ep h a (“Mot u p u ”) a s a ca r eta k er on b eh a lf of t h e r es p on d en t wh o wa s s till you n g a t t h a t s ta ge. Th e d ecis ion s of t h es e cou r ts wer e d ecis ively in fa vou r of t h e r es p on d en t a n d a ga in s t t h e a p p ella n t . [3 ] Th e ca s e for t h e a p p ella n t on t h e ot h er h a n d is to t h e effect t h a t Ch ief Ma ta la t ook a wa y t h e field fr om Mot u p u in 1 9 6 0 t h r ou gh a n in s p ection , p r es u m a b ly u n d er s 7 of t h e La ws of Ler ot h oli. Th is s ection em p ower s ever y Ch ief or Hea d m a n to fr equ en tly con d u ct a n in s p ect ion of a r a b le field s in h is a r ea wit h a view to r ea lloca tin g th em if, for exa m p le, t h e a llot ees fa il for two s u cces s ive yea r s p r op er ly to cu ltiva te t h em . See Mo la p o v Mo le fe 2 0 0 0 – 2 0 0 4 LAC 7 7 1 a t 7 8 0 p a r a [2 6 ]. It is t h e a p p ella n t’s ca s e t h a t t h e Ch ief s u b s equ en tly a lloca t ed t h e field t o h im in 1 9 6 3 . It tu r n ed ou t t h a t t h e Ch ief wa s t h e a p p ella n t ’s b r ot h er -in - la w, s om et h in g th a t a p p a r en tly ir k ed t h e lower cou r t s . Th er e wa s s im p ly n o evid en ce on r ecor d to ju s tify t h e r evoca tion of t h e r es p on d en t’s title or t h a t of h is p r ed eces s or to t h e field . [4 ] On 2 Ma r ch 2 0 1 1 t h e High Cou r t s it tin g in its civil a p p ella te ju r is d iction d is m is s ed wit h cos ts t h e a p p ella n t’s a p p ea l. In ter m s of s 1 7 of t h e Cou r t of Ap p ea l Act 1 9 7 8 (”t h e Act”) t h is m ea n t t h a t t h e a p p ella n t cou ld on ly a p p ea l to t h is Cou r t wit h t h e lea ve of t h e Cou r t or u p on t h e cer tifica te of t h e J u d ge wh o h ea r d t h e a p p ea l. It is a m a n d a t or y r equ ir em en t of t h e s ection , h owever , t h a t a n a p p ea l to t h is Cou r t on ly lies on a qu es tion of la w a n d n ot on a qu es tion of fa ct . [5 ] In ter m s of Ru le 3 (1 ), (2 ) a n d (9 ) of t h e Cou r t of Ap p ea l Ru les 2 0 0 6 , t h e a p p ella n t wa s ob liged t o a p p ly to t h is Cou r t for lea ve t o a p p ea l wit h in twen ty-on e d a ys of t h e d eliver y of t h e High Cou r t ju d gm en t if h e fa iled t o ob t a in t h e J u d ge’s cer tifica t e. No s u ch a p p lica tion wa s m a d e. Fu r t h er m or e, t h er e is n o evid en ce on r ecor d t o s h ow wh et h er a n a p p lica tion for t h e cer tifica te of t h e High Cou r t J u d ge wa s m a d e a n d , if s o, wh en it wa s m a d e. Wh a t is clea r , h owever , is th a t for a fu ll s even m on t h s a ft er t h e High Cou r t ju d gm en t t h e a p p ella n t h a d n ot ob ta in ed t h is Cou r t ’s lea ve or t h e cer tifica te of t h e High Cou r t a s en join ed t o d o s o b y t h e Act. In t h e a b s en ce of a n a ccep ta b le exp la n a tion t h e con clu s ion is in es ca p a b le in m y view t h a t t h e a p p ella n t wa s extr em ely d ila tor y. [6 ] On 5 Oct ob er 2 0 1 1 Peete J , wh o h ea r d t h e a p p ella n t’s a p p ea l in t h e High Cou r t , is s u ed a cer tifica te in fa vou r of t h e a p p ella n t in t h es e ter m s :- “J UDGE ’S CE R T IFICA T E W HE R E A S th e a ppe al of th e a bove -n a m e d Appe lla n t from th e S u bord in a te Cou rt a t J u d icia l Com m is s ion e r’s Cou rt Ma s e ru w a s u ph e ld by m e in th e High Cou rt of Le s oth o on th e 2 n d March 2 0 1 1 I d o h e re by ce rtify th a t th e ca s e is fit for an ap pe al on th e grou n d s s e t ou t on th e an n ex u re h ere to. DA T E D AT MA S ER U T HIS 5 T H DAY OF OCT OB E R , 2 0 1 1 (s ign e d ) … … … … … … … … … … … .. S IGNA T UR E OF J UDGE ”. [7 ] Th er e wa s n o a n n exu r e to t h e J u d ge’s cer tifica t e a n d , a s ca n p la in ly b e s een , t h e J u d ge’s cer tifica te d id n ot d efin e t h e p oin ts of la w on wh ich lea ve wa s gr a n ted . Th is is r egr ett a b le. Th e J u d ge h a s a p p a r en tly in exp lica b ly d is r ega r d ed t h e followin g gu id elin e la id d own b y th is Cou r t in Mo h a le v Ma h a o 2 0 0 5 – 2 0 0 6 LAC 1 0 1 a t p a ge 1 0 4 :- “[6 ] As gu id an ce in fu tu re , th e refore, it is n ow n ece s s ary to la y d ow n th e follow in g prin ciple s : (1 ) Practition e rs w h o a pply for le av e to a ppe al an d ju d ges of th e cou rt gran tin g le av e s h ou ld en s u re th a t th e prov is ion s of s 1 7 of th e Act an d th e Ru le s of Cou rt are s trictly obs e rved . (2 ) Th e applica tion for le av e to a ppe al s h ou ld s pecify th e grou n d s on w h ich le av e is s ou gh t. (3 ) Th e ju d ge gran tin g le av e s h ou ld cle arly d efin e th e poin ts of la w on w h ich le av e is gran te d in com plia n ce w ith th e Ru le s . (4 ) W h e n le av e is gra n te d , th e ce rtifica te of th e ju d ge a n d th e grou n d s of appea l s h ou ld th e n be d eliv e red by th e applican t.” I s h ou ld a d d t h a t Ad v. Pot s a n e, cou n s el for t h e a p p ella n t , h a s con ced ed , a n d p r op er ly s o in m y view, t h a t t h e J u d ge’s Cer tifica te wa s d efective. [8 ] On 7 Oct ob er 2 0 1 1 t h e a p p ella n t filed a n otice of a p p ea l a ga in s t Peete J ’s ju d gm en t . He s ou gh t t o r ely on t h e followin g gr ou n d s of a p p ea l:- “1 . Th e Hon ou rable J u d ge of th e High Cou rt e rre d an d m is d ire cte d h im s e lf in d ecid in g th e d is pu te b e tw e e n th e p artie s [on ] th e b as is of an is s u e th a t w a s n ot, an d cou ld n ot h av e been in v e s tiga te d by th e tria l Cou rt, n a m e ly w h e th e r th e [revoca tion ] of th e alloca tion m a d e to th e Re s pon d en t’s gran d fa th e r h ad been la w fu lly d on e . Th e s a id [revoca tion ] w a s n eve r ch a lle n ge d by th e Res pon d en t’s gran d fa th e r a t th e tim e it w a s m a d e . Th e Re s pon d en t can n ot cla im th a t w h ich h is gran d fa th e r d id n ot h av e w h e n h e d ie d . 2 . Th e Hon ou rable J u d ge of th e High Cou rt e rre d an d m is d ire cte d h im s e lf in h old in g th a t be cau s e Ch ief Ma ta la w a s gaz e tte d a s ch ief in 1 9 6 7 , h e h ad n o au th ority to con d u ct th e in s p ection th a t led to Appe llan t b e in g alloca te d th e d is pu te d fie ld in 1 9 6 3 . Th e Cou rt ove rlook e d th e fact th a t in h is ev id e n ce before th e tria l Cou rt, Ch ief Ma ta la te s tif ie d th a t h e acte d for h is s ick ly fa th e r from 1 9 4 3 . 3 . Th e Hon ou rable J u d ge of th e High Cou rt e rre d an d m is d ire cte d h im s e lf in ove rlook in g th e fact th e Re s pon d en t cou ld n ot d is pu te s u cce s s ion to prope rty w h ich d id n ot be lon g to th e th e tim e of h is pe rs on h e cla im s to h av e in h e rite d it from , a t d e a th .” th a t [9 ] In ter m s of Ru le 5 (1 ) of t h e Cou r t of Ap p ea l Ru les 2 0 0 6 t h e a p p ella n t wa s ob liged t o file t h e r ecor d of p r oceed in gs in t h is Cou r t n ot la ter t h a n t h r ee m on t h s a ft er t h e J u d ge’s cer tifica t e. However , t h e a p p ella n t b r ea ch ed t h e Ru le b y fa ilin g t o file t h e r ecor d tim eou s ly. Th e r ecor d wa s on ly filed on 2 Ma r ch 2 0 1 2 . He h a s n ot fu r n is h ed a n y exp la n a tion a t a ll for t h is d ela y. I s h a ll r etu r n t o t h is a s p ect of t h e ca s e la t er . [1 0 ] On 1 9 Ma r ch 2 0 1 2 t h e Cou r t r equ es ted cou n s el in wr itin g to file h ea d s of a r gu m en t on t h e followin g is s u es :- “(1 ) An ex plan a tion a s to w h y th e app e llan t’s a ppe al w a s n ot pros ecu te d in th e High Cou rt u n til J a n u ary 2 0 1 1 ? (2 ) If con d on a tion pros pects of s u cces s on appe al? is s ou gh t, d oe s th e a ppe llan t h av e (3 ) Doe s th e appe al ra is e a poin t of la w a s e n v is a ge d by s ection 1 7 of th e Cou rt of Appe al Act (‘th e Act’)? (4 ) If th e appe al ra is e s is s u e s of fact, d oe s th e cou rt of Appe al h av e ju ris d iction in th e m a tte r in v ie w of s ection 1 7 of th e Act? (5 ) Doe s Pee te J ’s ce rtifica te in th e m a tte r com ply w ith s ection 1 7 of th e Act re a d w ith th e Cou rt of Appe al Dire ctiv e a s la id d ow n in Moh a le v Ma h a o 2 0 0 5 – 2 0 0 6 LA C 1 0 1 a t p a ra [5 ] (3 ) on th e n eed to ‘d efin e ’ th e poin ts of la w on w h ich le av e is gran te d ? (6 ) W as th e a ppe al to th is Cou rt n ote d w ith in 3 0 d ay s of Pee te J ’s ce rtifica te ?” [1 1 ] In p a r a gr a p h 3 of h is h ea d s of a r gu m en t filed on 2 Ap r il 2 0 1 2 , Ad v Moh a u , KC, t h e a p p ella n t’s t h en cou n s el, exp la in s t h e a p p ella n t’s d ela y in p r os ecu tin g t h e a p p ea l in t h e followin g ter m s :- “Th e re as on w h y th e a ppe al to th e High Cou rt w a s on ly a rgu ed in J an u a ry , 2 0 1 1 is th a t th e tran s la tion of th e record an d its tra n s m is s ion to th e High Cou rt by th e J u d icia l Com m is s ion e r’s Cou rt w a s u n d u ly d e lay e d . Th e s a id re cord w a s on ly forw ard e d to th e High Cou rt in Fe bru ary , 2 0 0 5 .” [1 2 ] Cou n s el’s s u b m is s ion on t h is p oin t is n ot s u p p or t ed b y a n y a ffid a vit . Bu t , a s s u m in g cou n s el is cor r ect, t h er e is s im p ly n o exp la n a tion wh y for s ix yea r s t h e a p p ea l wa s n ot p r os ecu ted a ft er Feb r u a r y 2 0 0 5 wh en t h e r ecor d wa s for wa r d ed to t h e High Cou r t on cou n s el’s own ver s ion . [1 3 ] I d igr es s h er e to r ever t t o t h e a s p ect of t h e a p p ella n t’s d ela y in filin g t h e r ecor d of p r oceed in gs in t h is Cou r t . As p oin ted ou t ea r lier , t h er e is s im p ly n o exp la n a tion fu r n is h ed for t h e d ela y. Th is , in m y view, is a fa ct or for con s id er a tion in d is m is s in g t h e a p p ella n t’s a p p lica tion for con d on a tion . Th e a p p ella n t evin ces a d a n ger ou s a t titu d e t h a t t h e Ru les of t h is Cou r t a r e u n im p or ta n t a n d t h a t con d on a tion is s im p ly t h er e for t h e m er e a s k in g. [1 4 ] As t h is Cou r t s a id in Mo r e n a Se llo v 'Ma m e t s in g Se llo a n d Ot h e r s C o f A (CIV) No . 2 2 / 2 0 1 1 a t p a r a [8 ], wh ich wa s d ecid ed in t h is s es s ion , t h e a p p lica n t in a n a p p lica tion for con d on a tion m u s t s a tis fy two r equ ir em en t s , n a m ely:- “(1 ) He m u s t e s ta blis h good cau s e for con d on a tion . In th is regard h e m u s t e x pla in h is fa ilu re to act tim e ou s ly . He m u s t s h ow th a t h e w a s n ot w ilfu l. (2 ) He m u s t s h ow th a t h e h as good pros pects of s u cces s on a ppe al.” [1 5 ] Mor eover , it is well s et tled t h a t t h e Cou r t h a s a d is cr etion wh et h er or n ot t o gr a n t con d on a tion . Th is Cou r t h a s r ep ea ted ly s tr es s ed s tr on gly en ou gh t h a t t h e d is cr etion in qu es tion s h ou ld n ot b e exer cis ed a r b itr a r ily. On t h e con tr a r y, it is a ju d icia l d is cr et ion wh ich m u s t b e exer cis ed u p on a con s id er a tion of a ll t h e r eleva n t fa ctor s . See, for exa m p le, Ko a h o v S o lic it o r Ge n e r a l 1 9 8 0 – 1 9 8 4 LAC 3 5 a t 3 6 – 3 7 . [1 6 ] On t h e qu es tion wh et h er t h e a p p ea l r a is es a p oin t of la w or fa ct it is n eces s a r y t o h a ve r ega r d t o t h e p r ovis ion s of s 1 7 of t h e Act , n a m ely:- “1 7 . An y pers on aggrieve d by an y ju d gm e n t of th e High Cou rt in its civ il a ppe lla te ju ris d iction m a y a ppe al to th e Cou rt w ith th e le av e of th e Cou rt or u pon th e ce rtifica te of th e J u d ge w h o h e ard th e a ppe al on an y grou n d of a ppe al w h ich in v olve s a qu e s tion of la w b u t n ot on a qu e s tion of fact.” [1 7 ] In m y view, n on e of t h e a p p ella n t’s gr ou n d s of a p p ea l a s fu lly r ep r od u ced in p a r a gr a p h [8 ] a b ove r a is e a qu es tion of la w. On t h e con tr a r y, t h ey a r e a ll d es ign ed t o a t ta ck t h e a n a lys is of t h e evid en ce m a d e b y t h e lower cou r ts on t h e fa ct s . Th a t is n ot t h e fu n ction of t h is Cou r t in a m a t ter s u ch a s t h is . Th e effect of s 1 7 of t h e Act is t o lim it a p p ea ls t o t h is Cou r t to is s u es of la w on ly. See, for exa m p le, Le t s o e la a n d An o t h e r v Le t s o e la 1 9 8 0 – 1 9 8 4 LAC 2 7 5 a t 2 7 6 -2 7 7 . Th e m otiva tion for t h is p r in cip le is t h e n eed t o r elieve t h is Cou r t of t h e b u r d en of d ecid in g fa ct u a l is s u es in cir cu m s t a n ces wh er e t h e lower cou r ts h a ve a lr ea d y d on e s o. Th is con clu s ion r en d er s it u n n eces s a r y, in m y view, t o go fu r t h er . [1 8 ] It follows fr om t h es e con s id er a tion s t h a t t h e a p p ea l ca n n ot s u cceed . Th e followin g or d er is m a d e:- (1 ) Th e a p p ella n t’s a p p lica tion for con d on a tion of t h e la te filin g of a p p ea l a s well a s t h e la t e filin g of t h e r ecor d of p r oceed in gs is d is m is s ed wit h cos ts . (2 ) Th e a p p ea l is s im ila r ly d is m is s ed wit h cos ts . ____________________________ M. M. R AMODIBE DI PR E SIDE NT OF THE COUR T OF AP PE AL I a gr ee: _________________________ J . W. S MALBE R GE R J US TICE OF AP PE AL I a gr ee: _________________________ C. T. H OWIE J US TICE OF AP PE AL F o r t h e Ap p e lla n t : Ad v. E . T. Pots a n e F o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t s : Mr E . M. Sello